As climate change floods Florida, Marco Rubio refuses to acknowledge science

originally posted by: Drawsoho
Little Marco can deny all he wants because it's a free country. However
he never shows up for work and has the lowest rating of any Senator.

I think he should do his denying as a regular citizen.

a reply to: lostbook

I think he's says what his rich donors in the fossil fuel industry tell him to say.

a reply to: Greven

Do you question how greenhouse effect?

That is a poorly formed question. Please resubmit.

Do you question how greenhouse gases redistribute heat in the atmosphere?

Molecules absorb energy whose quanta matches the energy gap between electron orbitals. They then release this same quanta of energy in a random direction.

Do you question spectroscopic analysis of CO2, showing that it is a greenhouse gas?

Carbon dioxide, being a relatively simple molecule, exhibits three narrow absorption spectra. One is in the general range of earth-emitted black-body radiation. Therefore, carbon dioxide can absorb and re-emit that specific frequency of electromagnetic radiation.

This narrow absorption band, incidentally, is what makes carbon dioxide such a good lasing medium.

One specific frequency, with a 50% chance of reradiating it from a gas which makes up 0.0004 of the atmosphere... literally so little of it that the low concentration is one of the largest hurdles for effective scrubbing.

Your link has absolutely nothing to do with carbon dioxide. Clouds are not made up of carbon dioxide. They are made of microscopic water droplets suspended in the air, usually formed when the air cools below its saturation limit. Water, whether in clouds or just as water vapor, is a highly potent greenhouse gas. This is due to the multiple bond energies involved in hydrogen bonding, one of the unique properties that water possesses.

Nice picture of the parking lot where I work, though.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Phage

I didn't say they do. You claimed that if sea levels were rising the effects would be uniform across the planet. That is false.

Oh, so you were just making small talk, then?

And no, it is not false. You have yet to show me any proof that sea level is rising from previous levels.

Yes. If everything else remains equal. But that is not the case. Thermal expansion causes increased volume of seawater. Glacial melt causes increased volume of seawater.

You forgot to take into account the increased capacity of warmer air to hold more water in suspension, and still have not been able to quantify what temperature rises you attribute this thermal expansion to.

Spitting in the ocean raises sea level too, theoretically. We're talking about a measureable, quantifiable rise.

As was pointed out, coastlines both subside and uplift, so showing sea level rise compared to particular coastlines won't give you that information. For example, much of Alaska is experiencing isostatic rebound. The coastline is rising faster than sea level is so tide gauges (without corrections) show levels falling.

Ah, there's that spark of light again!

That is exactly what I have been saying. Localized reports of changes in sea level are indicative of local phenomena, such as uplift/subsidence. See, that wasn't hard, was it?

If we had reports from 80% of the coasts that indicated rising compared to land, I would agree that sea level is probably rising and attribute the other 20% to localized uplift. I'm just not going to go that route when only maybe 10% of the coasts show relative rise.

That's a nice little graph you have there too. Did you know there's a couple of water 'fingers' sticking up out of the Pacific? There's a big one off the coast of Japan... maybe they picked up Godzilla?

Or maybe, just maybe, those are instrumental anomalies... possibly a random high concentration of water vapor or storms in those areas? Nah, has to be water fingers...

Oh, and it shows no sea level change around Miami... interesting.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Greven

What the hell universe do you live in?

It's a parallel universe you may have heard of. I call it 'reality.' You might want to come visit sometime... the weather is nice, oceans stay within their banks, and the planet hasn't experienced spontaneous combustion. We don't have many unicorns running around though...

You want to know what I look for? How many beaches are disappearing. If ocean levels rise appreciably, the first people to scream bloody murder won't be researchers... it will be oceanfront landowners and Realtors! I think if part of my yard suddenly disappeared I would notice it... especially if it cost more than an inland hotel.

I like the beach, and try to go to one every chance I get. So far, I haven't heard any uproar about land shrinking in most places... only localized places like Miami where subsidence is not only possible, but expected.

Cry and bitch and moan? Me? Excuse me for pointing out the obvious, but it sounds like you're looking in a mirror. I'm just answering allegations and pointing out facts.

TheRedneck

I don't live in FL anymore, but when I was a kid, I lived a block inland from the Gulf. Between moving away and then revisiting the neighborhood years later, the water level was inexplicably identical on the sea walls.

As an adult, I consistently lived no further than five blocks inland from the Gulf or bays. The water levels never changed.

Sure would be nice if the climate nutcases could fekking explain why in my 25 years down there, the water never rose beyond the normal tidal line variations. Because the sea's supposed to be rising, dontcha know (read that in Palin's voice for added humor)

Deliberately misleading climate doom porn BS, IMO

I am just curious of one thing.

If we are counting sea level rise in millimeters, does the creation of artificial land/islands have a micro effect on sea levels?

I just tried to Google it. Between Dubai's fake islands, the dikes(levees) in the Dutch region, and the airport in Japan, this has to be creating a water displacement of some sort.

Maybe not huge differences, but then again is a few millimeter rise in sea level that huge?

There are more factors involved with this subject than are at the mainstream level. Even though a man-made island is not "CLIMATE CHANGE", heating the earth style, it is still a man made issue.

Edit: OOPS, it looks like I stepped out of the media induced comfort zone of "global warming did it". I better make another glass of koolaid and veg out in front of the tube some more.]

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Greven

Do you question how greenhouse effect?

That is a poorly formed question. Please resubmit.

Do you question how greenhouse gases redistribute heat in the atmosphere?

Molecules absorb energy whose quanta matches the energy gap between electron orbitals. They then release this same quanta of energy in a random direction.

Do you question spectroscopic analysis of CO2, showing that it is a greenhouse gas?

Carbon dioxide, being a relatively simple molecule, exhibits three narrow absorption spectra. One is in the general range of earth-emitted black-body radiation. Therefore, carbon dioxide can absorb and re-emit that specific frequency of electromagnetic radiation.

This narrow absorption band, incidentally, is what makes carbon dioxide such a good lasing medium.

One specific frequency, with a 50% chance of reradiating it from a gas which makes up 0.0004 of the atmosphere... literally so little of it that the low concentration is one of the largest hurdles for effective scrubbing.

Your link has absolutely nothing to do with carbon dioxide. Clouds are not made up of carbon dioxide. They are made of microscopic water droplets suspended in the air, usually formed when the air cools below its saturation limit. Water, whether in clouds or just as water vapor, is a highly potent greenhouse gas. This is due to the multiple bond energies involved in hydrogen bonding, one of the unique properties that water possesses.

Nice picture of the parking lot where I work, though.

I admit to being quite tired writing this, but the question is irrelevant at this point, given that you indicate understanding of the greenhouse effect.

Indeed, the link is about the greenhouse effect; that was the main thrust of my post. Perhaps that was unclear.

I know what clouds are. Water in the atmosphere (whether as vapor or suspended) fluctuates rapidly, which is rather unlike CO2. CO2 From your response and regarding CO2, as you acknowledge it is a greenhouse gas you should also acknowledge that adding more of it will increase temperatures, ceteris paribus.

What you seem to imply is that the magnitude of that increase would be small. Is that correct?

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Greven

What the hell universe do you live in?

It's a parallel universe you may have heard of. I call it 'reality.' You might want to come visit sometime... the weather is nice, oceans stay within their banks, and the planet hasn't experienced spontaneous combustion. We don't have many unicorns running around though...

You want to know what I look for? How many beaches are disappearing. If ocean levels rise appreciably, the first people to scream bloody murder won't be researchers... it will be oceanfront landowners and Realtors! I think if part of my yard suddenly disappeared I would notice it... especially if it cost more than an inland hotel.

I like the beach, and try to go to one every chance I get. So far, I haven't heard any uproar about land shrinking in most places... only localized places like Miami where subsidence is not only possible, but expected.

Cry and bitch and moan? Me? Excuse me for pointing out the obvious, but it sounds like you're looking in a mirror. I'm just answering allegations and pointing out facts.

Totally ignoring the tidal gauges, then?

Oh, and they are screaming bloody murder, but you have to listen first:
www.theguardian.com...
thedianerehmshow.org...
abcnews.go.com...

Beaches frequently must be revitalized (renourishment). Might want to see how much that costs and how often it happens. Just because you don't hear or see something doesn't mean it ain't happening.
jacksonville.com...

There is much more info. Just need to look.

a reply to: Greven

What you seem to imply is that the magnitude of that increase would be small. Is that correct?

Small and limited.

The planet is huge and has quite a few control systems built in. Every study that attempts to model the global climate has shown an inability to accurately do so. They're getting closer, but still fall short; a good example is the many failed predictions of sea level rise... aren't we supposed to be underwater by now? That is simply because, thus far, all of the applicable controls have either been excluded or over-simplified. I earlier mentioned to Phage that he missed an offset to his hypothesis of sea level rise due to thermal expansion: greater ability of the atmosphere to hold water vapor.

Carbon dioxide has controls as well. Photosynthesis is one example: as the carbon dioxide levels increase, plant growth tends to increase, using more carbon dioxide. A slight temperature increase globally would assist in this, by increasing the length of the growing seasons.

Temperature increase due to carbon dioxide levels is also a non-linear relationship. I have done some theoretical research into this myself. The overall greenhouse effect becomes less pronounced as carbon dioxide levels increase, primarily due to the limitation of available energy radiated in the absorption spectra.

There is also the fact that black-body radiation is a function of surface temperature. As surface temperature rises, the proportion of radiation available for carbon dioxide absorption and re-emission drops.

Taken all together, these feedbacks indicate that any appreciable increase in global temperature due to carbon dioxide levels will be limited and will restabilize at a new equilibrium point. Given the fact that the planet has endured many much higher equilibria in the past, and given that historically warmer climates lend themselves to greater ecological expansion, it is a safe bet that any new equilibrium point will be beneficial, not destructive.

Some of these feedbacks are minor, but all exist. In a chaotic system such as the ecosphere of the earth, minor feedbacks can have drastic effects. Until we can understand and predict these effects, the whole Global Warming theory is just plain poppycock that takes attention away from serious pollution issues; worse, it's political hijacking of real science for financial gain.

TheRedneck

Edit to consolidate posts:

a reply to: Greven

You're talking about beach erosion, not sea level rise.

TheRedneck

Wow, the first page is full of ignorant claims. It is almost like there is a race to write something ignorant about denying humans role in climate change on here.

I am a Florida native, this past full moon high rides caused street flooding in Key West. No storm surge, no stormy weather, just a full moon the associated spring tides, I can promise you all that the same thing will happen again durring the new moon in about a week and half.

a reply to: jrod

I don't see how blaming the full moon for flooding does anything to back up your claim that man is causing global warming.

@Lice000: I see you do not understand the concept of radiative forcing not seem to realize that CO2 levels are on the rise as a direct result of us burning fossil fuels for energy. What I wrote is relevant to the OP, what you wrote is a waste of space.

This is an event that happens every fall in South Florida, I wrote about this last year in climate threads and it appears to get bigger, that is higher water each year.

Some can argue that this is evidence that the sea level is indeed rising.

originally posted by: jrod
@Lice000: I see you do not understand the concept of radiative forcing not seem to realize that CO2 levels are on the rise as a direct result of us burning fossil fuels for energy. What I wrote is relevant to the OP, what you wrote is a waste of space.

This is an event that happens every fall in South Florida, I wrote about this last year in climate threads and it appears to get bigger, that is higher water each year.

Some can argue that this is evidence that the sea level is indeed rising.

blah blah blah... you wrote.

Wow, the first page is full of ignorant claims. It is almost like there is a race to write something ignorant about denying humans role in climate change on here.

I am a Florida native, this past full moon high rides caused street flooding in Key West. No storm surge, no stormy weather, just a full moon the associated spring tides, I can promise you all that the same thing will happen again durring the new moon in about a week and half.

I can see that you do not understand simple math because i have used it many times here on ATS and in my personal life...see how my response does not make sense in the context of this conversation? Neither did yours.
It could be argued that CO2 level is dictated by temperature, not the other way around

a reply to: TheRedneck

Oh, and it shows no sea level change around Miami... interesting.

The ocean isn't uniform. I'm not an actual scientist; maybe you are, however, I find it interesting that you keep asking Phage for proof that sea level is rising from previous levels.

He did say that satellite data contained the proof you search for.

I do have a question for you. You said:

You forgot to take into account the increased capacity of warmer air to hold more water in suspension, and still have not been able to quantify what temperature rises you attribute this thermal expansion to.

Do you think the the temperature(s) related to Thermal Expansion could be the result of the vents on the West Coast which are spewing Methane/ Methane Hydrate?
www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: TheRedneck

I'm just not going to go that route when only maybe 10% of the coasts show relative rise.

Your confirmation bias is strong. 80% of the stations show a relative rise. 188 out of 234. Now, if you want to measure the lengths of those coastlines (be cautious with Mercator), feel free but note that the vast majority of regions not showing a relative rise are those which are undergoing isostatic rebound.

Once again:
tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov...

Or maybe, just maybe, those are instrumental anomalies... possibly a random high concentration of water vapor or storms in those areas? Nah, has to be water fingers...

Maybe showing some curiosity about how the data is obtained would be a better approach than denying it. Maybe you could look closer and see the overall increase is widespread, not just "fingers." www.star.nesdis.noaa.gov...

a reply to: Lice000

That is not valid, C02 is rising as a direct result of fossil fuel use. This is an undisputed fact. Radiative forcing is also a valid concept.

BTW, as far as my math goes, I did receive the Mu Alpha Theta award and scored a 5 out of 5 on my AP calculus exam way back in high school.

To make a claim that I do not understand basic math tells me you are not here to have a reasonable discussion, you are here to just muddy the thread.

a reply to: Phage

Now, if you want to measure those coastlines...

I'll pass for now. There are plenty of people measuring coastlines, living on coastlines, working on coastlines. They don't need my help nearly as much as some AGW alarmists do. I swear, it seems like some people will have a heart attack if there's a 5 degree rise in temperature.

Maybe showing some curiosity about how the data is obtained would be a better approach than denying it.

Oh, my bad...

Gee, how in the world did they get all that information from way up there in space?

Feel better?

It uses a ranging method akin to radar, probably LiDAR. It's much more accurate and robust than actual radar and doesn't need metallic reflections to operate. I know LiDAR has been used with good success in several experiments involving rain forest topography and growth rates. It just makes sense to use it for this as well.

And I didn't 'deny' anything. I pointed out there were anomalies. Actually, if there had been no anomalies,I would have been surprised. Anomalies do not invalidate a test; they simply raise suspicions. In this case, it appears the anomalies are easily noticeable and sporadic, not corrupting all the data. They are also easily explained by random wind, waves, tides, even heavy storms. All of these will return a reading that is skewed. Tides are pretty easy to compensate for, since they are regular and well-understood.

But waves and storms are less able to be compensated for. It looks from the images you referenced that the average was calculated using a linear distribution; perhaps a Gaussian distribution would be more helpful. Can you tell me what distribution function was used?

TheRedneck

a reply to: lostbook

The ocean isn't uniform.

Yeah, we have pretty much established that.

But the ocean is constantly trying to achieve uniformity. Gravity is continually pulling on every single molecule in an attempt to get it as close to the planetary center of gravity as possible. The only reason the surface is not uniform is that there are chaotic systems inducing disturbance forces. Tidal forces, wind, land subsidence/uplift, centripetal forces from the planetary rotation, that sort of thing. But these disturbances are zero-sum and temporary. They will not change average sea level. Only additional volume or decreased capacity can do that, and neither will change average levels in one place and not all places given a few days time for settling.

Do you think the the temperature(s) related to Thermal Expansion could be the result of the vents on the West Coast which are spewing Methane/ Methane Hydrate?

Actually, I do, and more than just the temperatures related to thermal expansion. Any heat source will create density differentials, which can and do affect water currents and atmospheric weather. How much effect they have depends on the amount of heat energy, the base temperature, the geography, and a host of other factors. Maybe the effect is substantial; maybe it is more akin to me raising sea level by spitting in the bay. I would like to see some reports on that sometime; it sounds quite interesting.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: Lice000

That is not valid, C02 is rising as a direct result of fossil fuel use. This is an undisputed fact. Radiative forcing is also a valid concept.

BTW, as far as my math goes, I did receive the Mu Alpha Theta award and scored a 5 out of 5 on my AP calculus exam way back in high school.

To make a claim that I do not understand basic math tells me you are not here to have a reasonable discussion, you are here to just muddy the thread.

You just don't get it...Im done. You have a comprehension deficit and you are all over the place. Temperature drives CO2 levels, get over it.

Here is a really good paper I saved a while back. It's from August, 2015

In my opinion this "global warming" changed to "climate change" because it is more accepted. We are seeing a power struggle between political science and real science. I just can't make myself drink the Kool-Aid just yet.

If history is an indicator this means climate has always changed. This is nothing new.

The quote from the paper is better than I can write. One of the 3 guys who conducted the research is Willie Soon. Some in the community came down hard on him and found him to be funded by oil money so they immediately went after him. The other 2 guys are Ronan and Michael Connolly. The three are from Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, Cambridge, MA and Independent research scientists, Dublin, Ireland

The research just 5 or 6 years back wasn't as political, not that I can remember anyway. I remember reading paper after paper speaking about solar and or space weather having an impact on our weather. Word was we were going to advance weather forecasting based on space weather.


Anyways.. check out the paper if you want. It's about 50 pages or less.

When we compared our new composite to one of the high solar variability reconstructions of Total Solar Irradiance which was not considered by the CMIP5 hindcasts (i.e., the Hoyt & Schatten reconstruction), we found a remarkably close fit. If the Hoyt & Schatten reconstruction and our new Northern Hemisphere temperature trend estimates are accurate, then it seems that most of the temperature trends since at least 1881 can be explained in terms of solar variability, with atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations providing at most a minor contribution. This contradicts the claim by the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports that most of the temperature trends since the 1950s are due to changes in atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations (Bindoff et al., 2013) We note that the political debate over anthropogenic global warming seems to have had a strong influence on the debate over the satelliteera TSI trends for more than a decade. For instance, in an August 2003 article over the TSI debate, Lindsey (2003) quotes Judith Lean (of the PMOD group) as saying, “The fact that some people could use [the upward TSI trend of the ACRIM composite] as an excuse to do nothing about greenhouse gas emissions is one reason we felt we needed to look at the data ourselves.” Lindsey also quotes Richard Willson (of the ACRIM group) as saying, “It would be just as wrong to take this one result and use it as a justification for doing nothing as it is wrong to force costly and difficult changes for greenhouse gas reductions per the Kyoto Accords, whose justification using the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports was more political science than real science.” In our opinion, the ACRIM composite is probably the most reliable and the PMOD composite the least reliable of the three, for the reasons that have been outlined by the ACRIM group globalwarmingsolved.com...